RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm
(This post was last modified: July 16, 2015 at 7:29 pm by Aristocatt.)
Anima I just read the response you gave me to one of my previous posts.
We need to go through my argument again.
It worked like this.
Because you used one ludicrous example to show that it was possible for homosexuality to lead to extinction, and because of that, you deemed homosexuality as wrong(or at the very least felt you had brought forth a coherent argument).
My response was:
If I can create an example where heterosexuality leads to extinction, then heterosexuality is also wrong according to the criteria you set to deem homosexuality immoral.
The entire argument is irrelevant to IVF costs, I know I have been mentioning them quite often, but you seem to be misunderstanding why I am mentioning them. You moved from making an argument that homosexuality is wrong based on principle to making an argument that homosexuality is wrong from a utilitarian perspective where we need to weigh all the costs and effects.
I am inclined to think this is your MO, however. Rather than addressing directly the points being presented, it is more convenient to dodge the question and move in between different arguments.
In response to your points about underpopulation being an issue. It is akin to saying because it was colder this winter on the Eastern Shore of the US, that the earth was on average colder this Winter. It is disingenuous.
Sorry for the late response, my computer screen cracked. I was out of commission for awhile.
We need to go through my argument again.
It worked like this.
Because you used one ludicrous example to show that it was possible for homosexuality to lead to extinction, and because of that, you deemed homosexuality as wrong(or at the very least felt you had brought forth a coherent argument).
My response was:
If I can create an example where heterosexuality leads to extinction, then heterosexuality is also wrong according to the criteria you set to deem homosexuality immoral.
The entire argument is irrelevant to IVF costs, I know I have been mentioning them quite often, but you seem to be misunderstanding why I am mentioning them. You moved from making an argument that homosexuality is wrong based on principle to making an argument that homosexuality is wrong from a utilitarian perspective where we need to weigh all the costs and effects.
I am inclined to think this is your MO, however. Rather than addressing directly the points being presented, it is more convenient to dodge the question and move in between different arguments.
In response to your points about underpopulation being an issue. It is akin to saying because it was colder this winter on the Eastern Shore of the US, that the earth was on average colder this Winter. It is disingenuous.
Sorry for the late response, my computer screen cracked. I was out of commission for awhile.
